Readers' comments

To The Economist:
The name has to be "Germany and the former Yugoslavian Republics.
The pivot in the former Yugoslavian Republics EU ambitions."
The Balkans included many other Contries-Greek, Bulgaria, Albania and parts of Italy, Romania and Turkey

…………
Then there is a hope (25 years away) for Latinos in Florida or California – precedent is set only Albanian style of human organ trafficking is missing. Kosovo theft was systematized in Washington with the silent nod from Berlin – Europe is better place for al Qaida than NY.

I am not sure if the German public is ready for more enlargement after the continuing disasters with the Greeks and Greek cypriots.
If, however, we admit the Croats we cannot very well keep out the Serbs.
To admit Bulgaria and Romania was a mistake. They should have been kept on close watch for another 10 years as associated members to ensure that corruption will really be flushed out of the system if, indeed, this is possible at all.
According to some Croatian friends the whole region, including Croatia itself, is just as corrupt, if not even more so, than Greece. The fakelaki system is a way of life there. Nothing gets done without backhanders or connections.
We should put everything on hold until the present problems involving Greece, Cyprus and Italy have been resolved . If they should decide by themselves that the EU is not for them in view of the present mess, we should agree with them in all friendship.

Really?
Romania was a mistake according to you?
Romania and Bulgaria from 2007 when they joined until 2012(excluded) received a total of 8 billions euros from the EU budget).

Spain and Greece in the last 25+ years since they joined received 200 billions euros.

I think that the mistake was Spain together with Greece, Portugal and Ireland. This 4 countries will cost the EU the euro project and will be the downfall of the Union. Greece is the Achilles' heel of the Union.

You should stop worrying about Romania and Bulgaria and be really frightened with what it's happening in Spain and Greece.

Italy too was a mistake, with its tremendous corruption level. For me the true errors were Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal. They should've not join the Euro, not before fix the huge amount of problems that they have.

German foreign policy on the balkans has, traditionally, played second fiddle, yes.

With one exception: the diplomatic recognition of croatia and slovenia during the breakup of yugoslavia. For which the then foreign minister, Genscher, is still routinely pilloried in english-language academic circles.

In german-language academic and diplomatic circles, the story is that Genscher had an agreement to do this with his french and british colleagues. But that story, of course, never gets told.

The moral of the story, for me? Germany has to act via multilateral, EU institutions in the balkans. It can no more be an "honest broker" in the balkans than the UK could be, over northern ireland.

There's just too much history there. "Some bloody stupid thing in the balkans" as a trigger for european war, was a danger that Otto von Bismarck forsaw back in the 1880's.

And the danger is still there. Tred lightly and cautiously, and leave it to Catherine Ashton to take the lead.

"In german-language academic and diplomatic circles, the story is that Genscher had an agreement to do this with his french and british colleagues"

Mitterrand and the British PM of the era were reluctant to interven. The Balkans were never under France and or Britain sphere of influence. It's Germany that played the part, that Sarkozy/Cameron did for Libya, but for the Balkans. Kohl went a few times to Washington praying the Americans to come into the conflict with NATO

First of all it was Iceland that recognized Croatia first, and it was not a Genscher's whim. Second, where are these English circles? Multilateral EU and UN institutions in ex-Yugoslavia didn't do anything, and their role was was very negative, just prolonging the agony, and their performance on the ground was pathetic. So what if Germany takes a leading role in the region? The whole place, including Hungary, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, ex-YU just depend on it. If you want to cut that dependence, well one can over turn to the non-aligned movement. As for TJ, it's a mistake to place Croatia in the same basket as Serbia, Macedonia and Albania, Mimica was there just because he'll be the Croatian EU commissioner.

On the other hand there are many Serbs, who are sensible enough to realize that Kosovo is long time lost and there's no point in denying it. The trouble with Serbia is that the kind, the intelligent, the non aggressive and the non chauvinistic people have no voice. And about Bulgarian and Romanian membership - well, we'll see if it was a mistake or not with time.

No, that's what you are implying. Would you admit that there are other voices beside the ones putting Kosovo over all? Not all the Serbs go around attacking foreigners and demolishing Belgrade, right? Guess they're part of the society too. But, somehow, they're never in the picture, that goes out. You tell me why.

I guess that you do not understand what the verb "to imply" really means. You also probably do not understand what it means "to stereotype" or you really do not care. Regardless, I will admit that there clearly are Serbian politicians who claim that Kosovo is lost and that the country should focus on other things. But the vast majority of people disagree with those politicians. That is all part of democracy and I really hope you understand what democracy means.

Demographically Kosovo has been lost for Serbia already under Tito. As much as I understand those who have a hard time to admit this, it is usually better to face realities as they are than hanging on to (expensive) dreams which make peaceful solutions more difficult day by day. This has nothing to do with Serbia's possible EU membership; but I think that favorable territorial trade-off negotiations are more feasible now, than they will be in 10 years from now.

As for Kosovo, I think this is what is going to happen: Serbia will not have to recognize Kosovo as a country. After all, that is what Catherine Ashton and Hillary Clinton said. But the dialogue among the two sides is of the essence. Regardless of what Serbs say, Kosovo will probably function as an independent country. The best thing Kosovars can get is a observer-chair in the UN because China and Russia can always veto against permanent membership. Also, it would be unconstitutional for Serbia to recognize Kosovo. Violence is unlikely to happen but there is a growing nationalism among the Albanians who think that they can unite Kosovo, Albania and few minor parts of Macedonia and Greece under one border. That is a ridiculous thought and Berlin and DC expressed their annoyance. This is not ideal solution for either side but it is a compromise. Political tides in the next 20-30 years will determine the fate of Kosovo. In my humble opinion and as ridiculous as it will sound, I think that the situation will favor Serbia's side because the EU and USA are facing incredible amount of problems while BRICK countries are growing fast. And these countries favor Serbia. There are a lot of assumptions here though.

That was a rather unintelligent and inappropriate comment, considering that it was Germany that started the last two world wars, and that Britain has led a colonial war against Argentina within our global memory.

Granted: the grocer's daughter in charge of the UK polity at the time did not send her own son to war; Mark Thatcher was lost on the Paris-Dakar rally about the same time and a search party of UK agents was sent after him, whilst Prince Andrew (whatever we may think about his ex-wife selling introductions to him at exhorbitant prices) was risking being if not killed then certainly inconvenienced in that war.

There, I said it, "war". A war it was. Just like the one 1939-1945 when Germany snatched golden teeth of its butchered Jewish victims. Just like Croatia did with its Serbian victims at the Jasenovac death camp.

If you are not "in the Republic of Serbia" why, then, do you act like you were.

The difference between the Falklands and Kosovo is that the majority of the population of the Falklands wants to belong to Britain, while a majority of the population of Kosovo doesn't want to belong to Serbia.

The will of the concerned people is more relevant in today's conflict settlements than 'historic considerations'. This is why Kosovo will never become an integrated part of Serbia again - at least not against the will of a majority of its people.

BTW, it's the year 2013 . . . and not the year 1933. This fact might have escaped your attention.

Are you aware how many Serbs were forced to move out from Kosovo? Have you heard of Zuta Kuca - the house in which the Albanians dissected kidnapped Serbs and sold their organs on the black market? Serbs were systematically, through force or intimidation, moved out of the area and only 100,000 of Serbs live on Kosovo now. Not to mention how many Albanians immigrated to Kosovo in the last 15 years and that my friend, affects the numbers. Yes, the "Kosovars" do not want to be part of Serbia now but I do not understand how can you justify something that was committed through such atrocities. The only reason Berlin and EU ignore what I just said is because they have political interest to ignore these facts. To give you a paralleled example, the Dutch government had to resign over what happened in Srebrenica (it is the Dutch soldiers who failed to prevent the horrors, the question is why). What would have happened with the winner of Nobel Prize for peace last year if it were revealed what really happened on Kosovo? I am not saying the Serbia is innocent here but the situation is completely different from what you see in the mainstream media. And please, spare me from guilt-tripping and washed-out phrases of American, German, British and French politicians about the "reality" on Kosovo. The key problem here is, the rising anti-Serbism since the 90s. Nobody addressed 200,000 Serbian refugees from Croatia, the destroyed personal property (my mother's house in Croatia included), victims (since apparently no Croatian/Bosnian officers and soldiers are apparently guilty in the Tribunal of Hague for the massacres against Serbs). Don't you find it at least a little odd that Yugoslavia broke apart 20 years ago and now all the countries want to in a sense unite in the EU? These facts might have escaped your attention.

You're barking up the wrong tree. I am fully aware of the role Alija Izetbegović played in the prelude of the Bosnian war. I also believe that the West sided with the Bosnian Muslims in order to have free hand against Muslims in other parts of the world. It was a tradeoff.

In the case of the Kosovo all I'm saying is, be realistic and look forward ... not rearward always.

your assumptions of how a person in or not in specific countries acts or does not act are hideously inadequate.
Besides, a rogation requires a question mark at the end to mark it as a question.
And the difference between Kosovo AND METOHIJA with 1846 Serbian Orthodox churches and monasteries 3-5 centuries OLDER THAN the arrival of Albanians to Europe from the Caucasus via Sicily in the 15th centurty on the one, and the Argentinian islets of Malvinas under British occupation which have no traces of human settlement for 6 centuries after the Serbain churches and monasteries were built on the other hand, is that Kosovo AND METOHIJA is forever unalienably Serbian land, whilst the issue of Britain accepting decolonisation and withdrawing its occupying force (including a handful of civilians) from the Malvinas is a matter of years, not even decades.

If Romania and Bulgaria were a mistake (these 2 countries from their entry in the EU both, together, received a total of 8 billions euros in 6 years) how do you call Greece and Spain (which in 25+ years of membership received both a total of 200 billions euros)?
Do you call Spain and Greece a major clusterf*** of gargantuan proportions?
Oh.. add Portugal and Ireland to those 2 countries from the West.

I'm Romanian and I believe Romania should exit the EU.

If after 25+ years of membership countries like Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland, after hundreds of billions of euros thrown at them, weren't able to construct for them functional economies, I believe that it's quite clear that this "union" it's a major failure.

We can only hope that the British will exit the "Union" thus setting in motion a chain of events that will lead to the collapse of the "Union". So help us God.

I understand your point but it is much easier said than done. Kosovo and Metohija is not an ex-girlfriend so you can simply say "be realistic and move on." Serbia has made its mistakes with Albanians but was severely punished. Majority of Serbs think that they were treated unfairly when the wars started in 90s including the illegal bombing of Serbia and Montenegro in 1999, with radioactive bombs and bombs banned by Geneva convention. Having that said, it would be an illusion to think that if Serbs gave up on its land that things would improve. That is why I tend to look back. The big picture of Western politics towards Serbia in the past 25 years suggests that Serbs cannot trust the West and that they can only rely on themselves and their efforts. Serbs realize that the Balkans area is a "farm" for countries like Germany/UK. It is not coincidental why there is a word in British language "balkanization", which means " divide a territory into small, hostile states." Interesting, huh?

The German term "Balkanisierung“ (engl. Balkanization, french Balkanisation) was actually used for the first time September 1918 by the German politician Walther Rathenau in an interview published by the New York Times in the aftermath of the First World War. Rathenau referred to the allied plans of dismembering the Austrian and Ottoman empires (on the Balkans).

This process of disintegration - then also strongly promoted by Serbia with the demand for “independence of the Southern Slavs” (Yugoslavs), reflected in the state-organized assassination of Austria’s Head of State (Archduke Franz Ferdinand) and his wife by Serbian terrorists, is actually lasting until now. Thus, one could, historically correct, say that Serbia is now harvesting what it had sown June 28, 1914.

Ever after the Treaty of Versailles any process of fragmentation of political and geographical units that exist in multiethnic states or the willful dismemberment of a large empire is called “Balkanization”.

With all due respect to you, I completely disagree with your previous post. Here are some remarks:

You said Serbian "terrorists" killed Franz Ferdinand, right? Because I thought that they were freedom fighters who fought for liberty...Who are the Albanians on Kosovo then - terrorists or freedom fighters? Why did you use the word "terrorist" in your argument? The words you choose might seem irrelevant to you but they mean everything to me, Serbs and even the Albanians. Also, how much do you know about the actual assassination of the Archduke? Because as far as I know, the day he was killed by Gavrilo Princip, there were a few other assassination attempts which were unsuccessful.

These people who tried to kill the Archduke were Bosniaks - the group they were all part of was called Young Bosnia and it included primarily nationalist Serbs as well as some nationalist Croats and Bosniaks. If things were a tiny bit different that day, a Croat or a Bosniak would have killed Ferdinand. It is highly unlikely that things would be different today if such a scenario actually occurred.

As far as the sowing and reaping is concerned, you mentioned that Serbs fought for the independence of the Yugoslavs. Well, Albanians are not Slavs at all. While your conclusion is very interesting, it would only be valid within the scope of Yugoslavia. It appears that you are connecting dots to make your argument seem strong.

The definition of Balkanization or as you mentioned "Balkanisierung" implies the third party that is behind all of it. So, let us talk again about ex-Yugoslavia countries, Greece, Bulgaria and Romania. Today, all of these Balkan countries lost their independence because they are either in, or going to be in EU. They cannot do anything on their own anymore because they are poor, indebted or simply hated. No one can do anything anymore without the consent from Berlin. All of these countries have great resources that can be colonized and monopolized and they also have very cheap labor force.

Do not forget that Yugoslavia was once powerful nation with a great industry. If Yugoslavia was still that same country today it would have had a say in the EU, or would have been against the EU. But Berlin and DC do not like anything that could hinder their globalization. Hence, "divide et impera."

It seems that you are quite 'blindsided' educated about the events that lead to WW I.
I could cite from Luigi Albertini's "Origins of the War of 1914", by Oxford University Press or from the Academic American Encyclopedia or from Joaquim Remak's "Sarajevo: The Story of a Political Murder", Criterion Books, however, these works are not online to verify.
.
So I checked with Wikipedia. And also Wikipedia states the same facts.
.
(Quote): The Black Hand (Crna Ruka) was formed . . . on 9 May 1911 . . .
.
Many members were Serbian army officers. The professed goal of the group was the creation of a Greater Serbia, by use of violence, if necessary. The Black Hand trained guerillas and saboteurs and planned political murders. The Black Hand was organized at the grassroots level in 3- to 5-member cells, supervised by district committees and by the Central committee in Belgrade whose ten-member Executive Committee was led by Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijević (also known as Apis).
.
Black Hand members held important army and government positions. Crown Prince Alexander was an enthusiastic and financial supporter. The group held influence over government appointment and policy. The Serbian government was fairly well informed of Black Hand activities. . . . By this point, standing up and saying 'no' to the Black Hand was a dangerous act. Political murder was one of their well known tools.
.
It was also in 1914 that Colonel "Apis" Dragutin Dimitrijević (and others) decided that Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir-apparent of Austria, should be assassinated. Towards that end, three young Bosnian-Serbs were recruited and trained in bomb throwing and marksmanship. Gavrilo Princip, Nedeljko Čabrinović and Trifko Grabež were smuggled across the border into Bosnia via a chain of underground-railroad style contacts.
.
The decision to kill the Archduke was apparently initiated by Apis, and not sanctioned by the full Executive Committee. Some of those involved probably realized that their plot would invite war between Austria and Serbia. They had every reason to expect that Russia would side with Serbia. . . . Others in the Serbian government and some on the Black Hand Executive Council were not as confident of Russian aid.
.
When word of the plot percolated through the Serbian leadership, Apis was supposedly told not to proceed. A half-hearted attempt was made to intercept the young assassins at the border, but they had already crossed. In retrospect this 'recall' appears to make Apis look like a loose cannon (not under government control), and the young assassins as independent zealots. In actual fact however, the 'recall' took place a full two weeks before the Archduke's visit. The assassins idled around in Sarajevo for a whole month. Nothing more was done by the Serbian leadership to stop them. (Endquote).
.
If this isn't the description of an 'epitome of state-organized terrorism', then I really don't know what is.

Well, I went to an elementary school in Serbia, high school (gymnasium) in Germany and a university in USA that has a liberal arts curriculum. If that is blind-sided type of education, then I guess I am "blind-educated." Most people tell me it is diverse but what do I know. What about you? I really want to know what kind of education is eye-opening, liberal and the proper one. I did not want to comment on this but I noticed that you tend to ignore the gist of my posts. If you do not believe me, just scroll back and see it for yourself - i.e. off all the important things I wrote in one comment, you chose to cling on the term Balkanization. Did it become personal?

Now, as for the Wikipedia article, I do not understand what are you trying to achieve by posting it? I mentioned Gavrilo Princip who obviously was a Serb and I also mentioned other individuals who are claimed to be Bosniaks. I see now that they were actually another Serb and a Bosnian Serb, so there I was wrong but I do not think it makes substantial difference. I said they were members of Young Bosnia which is also true. Black Hand's mission was to liberate ALL Yugoslavs (that my friend, as you already know, includes Croats, Slovenians, Bosniaks, etc.) from Austria-Hungary and to unite Serbs with Serbs who lived in the nearby lands. Thus, you can deduce that the group wanted to help all Serbs live under one border and help other people live free from the foreign authority. You cannot blame them since the Austria-Hungary was an imperial power and people wanted to be freed from oppression. On the other hand, Black Hand was a group of nihilists and was also responsible for the assassination of the Serbian King Alexander I Obrenovic. Was this article meant to make me believe Serbia as a state acted in a terrorist manner? What country are you from? Because what you are doing now is very unfair and connotes to double standards. Tell me where you are from and I will prove it to you that your government acts and thinks otherwise. Unless of course, your country has double-standards and you simply listen to what your politicians say. Or we can find compromise that there is no real difference between terrorism and fighting for liberty. That way, Americans are terrorists, Serbs are terrorists, Russians are terrorists, you name it.

Now, your comments on this topic suggests, but I could be totally wrong though, that you hold Serbs responsible for the WWI. As if imperialism, the scramble for Africa, broken alliance among Germany, A-H and Russia because A-H and Russia could not agree on the Balkans did not contribute the world's major powers to be in the irreversible position. As if the assassination and the terms of A-H to Serbian government were not made in such a way that A-H knew Serbia would reject. So the assassination was an inducement but not the real reason of WWI. That is the way I learned history in Serbia AND in USA.

If you are so fond of literature of historical importance, why don't you read a book called "Na Drini Cuprija"(The bridge on Drina) by the only Literature Nobel Prize winner in the Balkans, Ivo Andric. Trust me, you would be mind-boggled. Who knows, you might even change your opinion a little.

Your perception of the EU and the Balkan countries doesn't match the facts. On the basis of the facts, no country was ever ‘forced’ to join the E.U.

Rather the opposite is true: All new member countries had to apply for membership prior to accession. If a country doesn’t apply it doesn’t become a member, as simple as that.

Fact is further that before the US mortgage crisis triggered the Euro crisis, new members were lining up for EU-membership. No country needed to be ‘pushed’ to join. Greece even falsified its fiscal data in order to be allowed to join the Euro currency. When Bulgaria and Rumania had to wait 2 years longer before they were fully accepted, public frustration was intense in these two countries.

Yes, both countries are poorer than most other EU members, but they are still better off than similar countries which are not in the EU.

The EU operates comprehensive approval procedures that ensure new members are admitted only when they can demonstrate they will be able to play their part fully as members, namely by:

• complying with all the EU's standards and rules
• having the consent of the EU institutions and EU member states
• having the consent of their citizens – as expressed through approval in their national parliament or by referendum.

The first step is for the country to meet the key criteria for accession. These were defined at the European Council in Copenhagen in 1993 and are hence referred to as 'Copenhagen criteria'. Countries wishing to join need to have:

• stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
• a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
• the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

And: The EU reserves the right to decide when candidate countries can join. It also needs to be able to integrate new members. This would be also true for Serbia and Albania.

And I don't share your pronouncement that Yugoslavia was once a "powerful nation with a great industry". I was in Yugoslavia several times during the Tito era. My impression was rather of a country extremely backward in development compared to core European countries or even compared to Greece.

I already know all of that since I hear about it every day in the news. Again, I do not understand what do you mean by your latest out-of-the-blue post. I never said nor suggested that anyone is forced to join EU. As the matter of fact, I am against Serbia joining the EU because Serbia is going to be eaten by big economies as it has happened to all EU countries in the area. And I do not even include politics. And yes, those countries are better off than Serbia today but keep in mind that Serbia went through horrible, costly wars, hyperinflation, NATO bombing that destroyed factories and infrastructure and self-proclaimed cessation of Kosovo.

Greece's books were cooked by Goldman Sachs and keep in mind that Greece organized Olympics only 9 years ago(!?). There were recent riots in Slovenia's capitol and another city against the government and corruption. Bulgaria's government resigned, Romania is doing a little better, it seems. Croatia is shaking. Serbia is the worst, although there seems to be a huge expected influx of investments from Russia, China and UAE since the new government won the election in May.

As for Yugoslavia, you're wrong. It had greater GDP than Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc. I understand these countries are not really powerful country examples, but my point is, Yugoslavia was way more powerful than all its states today. All of this was when Yugoslavia was a closed economy. You can hear about Yugoslav standards compared to the standards today from every older man who live in any of these countries. Ruined Yugoslavia is an easy prey to the big economies as opposed to war-free united Yugoslavia that would have had constant growth...

Kosovo was under the Ottoman rule since 1389, and since the great migration of Serbs very few of them left. By using your logic, one may ask what happened to the Turkish population who were the majority in all towns found in Serbia today? Then Turkey has the same right to claim Belgrade back, is that so? Yugoslavia was broken apart because it was a bankrupt communist dictatorship, rotten to the core.

"As for Yugoslavia, you're wrong. It had greater GDP than Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc. I understand these countries are not really powerful country examples, but my point is, Yugoslavia was way more powerful than all its states today. All of this was when Yugoslavia was a closed economy. You can hear about Yugoslav standards compared to the standards today from every older man who live in any of these countries."

Yugoslav standards were low, look at every statistic handbook from 1970's, the number of cars, TV's and phonelines per 1000 people, and Yugoslavia as a whole lagged even behind Poland and Hungary, not to mention GDR and Czechoslovakia. And Yugoslavia was not a closed economy, it was heavily dependent on western loans, and when the US interest rates rose, because of American internal reasons, it just went broke, together with Romania, Poland, North Korea, etc. In brief Yugoslavia was ruined from the very beginning.

"As for Yugoslavia, you're wrong. It had greater GDP than Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc. I understand these countries are not really powerful country examples, but my point is, Yugoslavia was way more powerful than all its states today. All of this was when Yugoslavia was a closed economy. You can hear about Yugoslav standards compared to the standards today from every older man who live in any of these countries."

Yugoslav standards were low, look at every statistic handbook from 1970's, the number of cars, TV's and phonelines per 1000 people, and Yugoslavia as a whole lagged even behind Poland and Hungary, not to mention GDR and Czechoslovakia. And Yugoslavia was not a closed economy, it was heavily dependent on western loans, and when the US interest rates rose, because of American internal reasons, it just went broke, together with Romania, Poland, North Korea, etc. In brief Yugoslavia was ruined from the very beginning.

By using logic, you will keep in mind that the Turks were invaders and an imperial power, like Austria-Hungary or Romanov's Russia; all three of them major player in the area. Ottomans won in 1389 but you ignore that before victory, Kosovo was Serbia's. During the Great Migration of Serbs, Serbs left Kosovo. After the WWI, Serbs returned to Kosovo, while the Turks either left or were killed by the Allied countries, Serbia included.

And yes, Yugoslavia had too many problems. But why do you think that cessation is better than fighting for democracy? Slobodan Milosevic was a dictator and he was defeated by the Serbian people, with help and funding from the West. My questions are, why Western countries did not help and fund Yugoslavian people to obtain democracy so the country could remain one whole country? Was it impossible? Could they have prevented the Yugoslav civil war? Could they have prevented the bombing of Serbia? I cannot give you an exact answer because I have no clue. But seeing how they treat people here, I believe that they could. But they put own benefits above people's lives. But that's just my opinion.

Yet, I don't agree that "the EU" has devious intentions when accepting a new applicant. It is rather so that EU membership brings a corset of rules and regulations with it that might hamper state-individual adjustments which otherwise could be made to advance that specific economy.

Since these rules and regulations are mainly implemented to equalize competition among the strongest players, such as Germany, France, Holland or Austria, they might at the same time put those economies at a disadvantage which are still in need of more leeway to achieve international competitiveness; e.g. by shielding home industries through import barriers and/or via targeted subsidies, this at least until that specific economy gained fully fledged competitiveness on the international markets.

To be fair, it also has to be acknowledged that the EU (Brussels) was quite reluctant to accept Bulgaria and Rumania as full EU members for exactly these reasons, but that these countries tried to storm into the EU anyway, mainly for political reasons and because of the huge structural and regional EU funding they receive.

However, this funding also functions as a drug: Those countries' politicians became quickly addicted to it, often using the funds for personal enrichment in a corrupt environment or simply boost their country’s social budgets (in order to buy public vote) instead of applying these funds to structural reforms and regional developments for what they're actually intended.

As a last point: Yugoslavia under Tito had an economic and political advantage over countries like Bulgaria, because it was a non-aligned socialist state with semi-capitalist structures, due to Yugoslavia’s self-liberation in WW II, while most Eastern-bloc countries were part of Soviet Union's inflexible COMECON empire, and were also strictly communist.

You're right about the reasons why countries have to make certain steps in order to join the EU but I am of the different opinion about the intentions of certain EU countries. They patronize weaker countries all the time.

For example, when I look at how Germans look down on the Greeks, it really make me want to throw up. As some German politician/economist (I am not sure which one of the two is he) said couple days ago, the reason why Germany after WWII became what it became today, is not simply because of the disciplined, hardworking mentality of the German people but simply because the world decided to forgive all the debt that Germany owed to the world, despite horrible acts and intentions of this nation and losing the war.

I understand that Greeks are very corrupt (I am actually very familiar about it) and that corruption is the main reason why Greece is so heavily indebted but who are Germans to judge anyone? Moreover, I see Germans look down on and make fun of Greeks on many occasions, as for example, before the soccer game they called them "Hell-Ass" in major newspaper but they act differently towards Italy and Spain which are bigger threats to the EU. What is the point of EU if you are going to make fun of its members states just because you are in the better position or have more aircraft carriers? That behavior reminds me of social conditioning. I know I will probably sound even more ridiculous to you, but perhaps EU is not so liberal after all.

Structurally, EU is not even remotely close to the USA and it never will be because people inside the borders are way too culturally different. I think the politicians know that and they take advantage of the situation.

Interesting, I did not think that way about Yugoslavia so you are right regarding the advantageous position of the country compared to the Eastern Bloc countries. However, that does not explain the fact that Yugoslavia had a rank of 24th largest economy in the world by GDP in 1991. And 1991 was not the best year and as far as I know, the best year was somewhere in the early to mid-eighties. If you want to check my info simply google "yugoslavia gdp wiki" and look to the right for the quick info and for the graph.

Also, if you want to learn more about Yugoslavia, you can watch a two-hour long documentary called "the weight of chains." You can simply watch it on YouTube.

We should be very careful when taking about "the Greeks", "the Germans", "the Americans", unless we really mean each and everyone in this group.

I am not aware that "the Germans" look down on "the Greeks". The Greek society as a whole may be criticized because of the wide-spread 'fakelaki'-culture. But this doesn't mean that the average German "looks down" on honest Greeks.

I also doubt that it was a German newspaper that called the Greek football team "Hell-Ass", simply because this English appellation doesn't make sense in German ("hell" means 'light' in German, and "ass" is 'ace' in German).

I also don't believe that the EU is comparable with the USA. The EU is a voluntarily association of independent nations, while the USA is one united single nation. These are different concepts.

About Yugoslavia: I am familiar with the country from before the break up (I even read cyrillic) and I visited Croatia and Slovenia most recently.

I am sorry if the way I worded my thought offended you or some fellow readers. Certainly, not every German thinks like that about every Greek and vice-versa. As you said, German society tends to criticize Greek society. Maybe the next few paragraph would shed some more light on what I truly meant.

I translated the term Hell-Ass, it was actually written Hölle-Ass. I was too lazy to look for the letter "ö" since I do not use that kind of font and because I thought you would have trusted me. If by now I still have to explain every little detail thoroughly, then I doubt that anything I wrote had any purpose. If I sound like an aggravated person who wants to blame somebody else, without any evidence or at least stimulating ideas, please tell me that so I can stop posting here and wasting our time. I will not get offended, I promise.

The "ö" is read same as "oe" but most people in the Balkans read it as "e" because it is much easier for them to pronounce it that way. For example, they pronounce city of Köln as Keln. That is why this joke Hell-Ass was clever but IMO inappropriate. There was another joke in the newspapers on the day of the game that went something like this: "Lev and Merkel agreed: The Greece will go out of Euro." Again, pretty funny unless you are a Greek. What I also find interesting is that Angela Merkel watched particularly that game at the stadium. It did not take a lot of time for Germans to bring up their attitude towards somebody else.

Germany has to be thankful for being allowed to have military again, most of the WW2 (not WW1, I talked in my previous post about WWII) debt forgiven while the rest got restructured, and for being allowed to unite. Interestingly enough, all of that happened while so many countries in Europe split apart and this tendency is likely not over (Catalonia, Scotland etc.). Also, the ex-allies of Germany are doing a whole lot better than those who fought against Germany and are not in the position to oppose. Even Turks who joined Allies in the WWII on the last day of the war are favored by Germany since Turkey allowed many Germans to escape Europe from being prosecuted or simply hated. The gratitude can be seen in nearly 5,000,000 Turks inside the German borders, particularly Western Germany. Germany does not mind to finance Turks with welfare yet it minds gipseys from Serbia who do not even have own country. So there are talks that EU is considering bringing back visas to Serbia so this minority cannot "invade" borders of certain EU countries. It is obvious that Serbia is too poor to help its own people, not to mention minorities. Germany calls them "Serbs" because it wants to be politically correct yet you and I both know the act itself is not politically correct. All of this being said, do you still think the wounds of war are completely healed and that Germany treats fairly all the nations? And before you answer, please, consider everything I said so far as well as what other contributors said.

Finally, about the EU/USA comparison I made: Do you remember what David Cameron said about UK and EU? I will paraphrase his words:"UK will leave the union because UK is unhappy how the union is managed; unless there is a motion towards one single government of the EU, there will be a referendum in 2017." Where do you think this is leading? If you have no idea, then wait another several years and you will see. And what country will be on top of the ship? Poland? Slovenia? Cyprus?

Sorry, but even Hoelle Ass doesn't make sense (in the sense you say it was used). Ass is something very positive in German. Calling someone 'Ass" is the same as saying to someone that he/she is "super". 'Ass', meaning 'Ace' is the highest card in a pack of cards.

I recall that Mrs Merkel said to, then, Prime Minister Papandreou that if Greece wants a referendum on austerity it also needs to state the alternative, which would be leaving the Euro. This was a true and fair statement, IMO.

Isn't this what the followers of Syriza and Golden Dawn want anyway? I am personally convinced that reintroducing the Drachma is a true alternative to the Euro-austerity.

I have problems to grasp what your statement means, "also, the ex-allies of Germany are doing a whole lot better than those who fought against Germany and are not in the position to oppose". Are you suggesting that there are, three generations after WW II, still invisible frontlines?

Your assumption that the citizens of Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia might have the right revoked to travel to the Schengen area without visas is not unfounded.

I remember reading last year that the EU home affairs ministers from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands had sent a letter to the European Commission asserting that thousands of people from the former Yugoslavia were delaying the system by claiming asylum with fake passports, and that the EU home affairs commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom said that the "worrying situation" was creating "serious problems for the functioning of the asylum system". I cannot comment on this because I know too little about it.

Finally, I can assure you that the (alleged) citation of David Cameron is either a misunderstanding or a hoax; not by any means would PM Cameron have said: "UK will leave the union because UK is unhappy how the union is managed; unless there is a motion towards one single government of the EU, there will be a referendum in 2017".

Yet, most likely there will be a referendum in Britain in 2007 on whether Britain stays in the EU or leaves. This is what Mr. Cameron has communicated, as far as I know.

It makes perfect sense, if you have at least a little sense of humor. The second part of the sentence was left that way so the audience knew to whom the author of the text was referring to (Hoelle-Arsch does not remind of Hellas). And there is no need for you to translate German language for me since I already suggested that I can actually speak it. I know very well what I saw and just because you keep suggesting to me that you do not trust me for anything I say does not mean it makes a whole lot difference to me. Why do you even bother to read what I say or even worse, respond to me? FYI, I have no intention of making things up just to support my arguments.

Not sure why you brought up Papandreou since Lev (Löw) is a football coach. The point of that joke about Lev and Merkel was this: Germany will decide who will leave the tournament and who will leave the union - since both are referred to by the word "Euro." It also subtly shows you how the media is power-tripping with German power.

As for the austerity measures, Drachma would probably help a lot if Greeks changed their habits about throwing money away on stupidity. We touched upon a lot of things so far and I really think that we should not start a debate on Drachma and Greek economy.

What I meant is this: Look at the map of Europe and focus on countries with smaller or weaker economies. Of those countries, those who fought against Germany are in crappy condition, while those who fought for Germany are in much better condition. Also, notice which countries are favored by German politicians. What I suggest is that Germans say and think that they are fair, tolerant and what not but their actions simply cannot justify it. I would not call it an "invisible frontline" because that suggests military. It is just overblown ego and bitterness mixed with hypocrisy. It seems to me that you are messing with me since I can clearly see that you already responded to a person on this topic, who said exactly what I said about Germany and its WW2 allies.

As for David Cameron, I have made a mistake. He never referred to unified government but he clearly talked about how things in EU need to change, without explaining (at least in that BBC article I looked into) what exactly needs to change. And that was not a citation but simply my way of paraphrasing what I thought he said. I must have associated an opinion of a journalist here in Serbia with what Cameron said. But with all due respect don't be naive about EU. The wealthiest and most powerful men in EU are favoring a unified government. Gorge Soros, who is famous among many other things for fear-mongering statements about the doom of the Europe unless EU centralizes power. Every few months or so he says something about prospects of central government of the EU. People like Soros are introducing that idea and rest assured that they are lobbying for that.

We are in the days in which: US Deparment of Homeland Security decided to buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (hollow point bullets) and just recently, 2700 lightly armored vehicles [this is all for use within the borders of USA]; global currency wars begun or are about to begin; neocolonialism of Africa is coming back, in the terms of liberation (i.e. France - Mali, Niger, uranium); the rise of China and Russia; times when Russians do not care what Americans think (i.e. Magnitsky law and adoption law); times when China can mess around with lonely and overly-indebted Japan in a dispute about some useless islands; North Korea crazyness; massive buy-outs of gold by Russia and China; terrorists; and so on, you get the picture. You can certainly see a pattern here and the balance seems to be shifting elsewhere, I am not sure where.

It seems that USA is losing the battle of the dollar because the Fed is running out of tools and measures to stabilize the economy. Thus, some people think that it would be logical for Europe to unite further in order to withstand the pressure of the emerging markets and increased competition.

I am a polite man. If someone addresses me I usually respond. This doesn’t mean that I will always share the addressor’s claims and opinions.

I do not doubt that you saw a sign in the football stadium reading ‘Hell Ass”, but I doubt that this was held by a German fan, since these words make absolutely no sense in the German language.

If you didn’t mean “Greece leaving the Euro” as a joke, then I certainly don't understand your sentence: “There was another joke in the newspapers on the day of the game that went something like this: "Lev and Merkel agreed: The Greece will go out of Euro."

In which newspaper was this ‘joke’? In a Greek paper? If it was, what do Germans have to do with this then? I was puzzled by your sentence and just assumed that you were talking about what Mr Merkel had said to Mr Papandreou in 2011.

I have also problems understanding the following of your claims. “It seems to me that you are messing with me since I can clearly see that you already responded to a person on this topic, who said exactly what I said about Germany and its WW2 allies”.

Why should I be wanting to mess with you? I also don’t recall having responded to someone who claimed that Germany gives preferential treatment to former war allies.

Rumania was a war ally of Nazi Germany, so was Bulgaria. Both are among the poorer of the new EU members. Poland was a WW II opponent of Germany and is now one of the its closest trade partners with a booming economy, so are the Netherlands, a former opponent. Yes, Finland and Austria were war allies, but their economic successes now are home-grown and have little to do with preferential treatment from Germany.

To form a European Federation is a 30-years old dream of Europhile Europeans. This step must be decided unanimously by all EU member states. George Soros is American citizen. He has no say on this matter. When Europeans want a Federation they will establish one. But now it doesn’t look that way.

I agree, if the US continues to expand the greenback endlessly it will eventually collapse. But currently we are experiencing the opposite: a budget sequestration.

I do not have a problem with anyone who has a different opinion as I. But it kind of bothers me to see someone being so invested in this conversation without even trying to carefully read what I write. So I wondered whether your command of English is bad (I highly doubt it) or that you simply trying to make a fool out of me. Or perhaps, you think by simply writing any answer here, it makes your opinion automatically valuable - with all due respect to you, Sir.

Every time I write something you tend to reply by bringing up a different topic or by telling me what I actually think. For example, I talked about German debt in WW2, while you responded to me by providing a bunch of links about German WW1 debt that was paid out in full. I have talked about that term I saw in the German newspapers (there was an article about it in the news even in Serbia), you told me you had no doubt what I saw on the stadium (??). You also went on what the term means in German language without even considering that I could speak German and that I have translated it to you for your convenience (unless you too speak German). I talked about Balkanization you talked about Serbian "state-organized terrorism." I explained to you about the assassination, you moved on to the rules about what a country needs to do to join EU (??). I can keep going for a long time but you get the picture. That is where this conversation goes to all the time. Basically, when I provide you with facts you move the conversation in a different direction.

And yes, you definitely responded with "ol' love never dies" on this article about ex-allies of Germany. Just search it towards the top.

That joke about Lev and Merkel is obvious. I even explained the meaning. If you do not understand it, ask someone else to read what I wrote for you. I cannot help you more about it. And honestly, I am not trying to condescend you. Maybe you just do not want to understand it. Where are you from, by the way?

George Soros is an American citizen. So what? He was born in Budapest to a Jewish family that moved to England after the war and later moved to USA. You can change your passport but you cannot change your roots. I am not even sure how the fact that he is an American citizen has anything to do with what I wrote about him.

You brought up Poland and Finland, even though I mentioned smaller economies specifically. The implication was that smaller economies cannot look after themselves and can be easily influenced. Again, I do not understand why you brought it up.

In my opinion, the whole thing about EU will be achieved the same way things get achieved in the USA. First, the wealthy class will lobby. Then, they will make a propaganda how one government is a simply fabulous idea. Then, people will vote for it, without even knowing what they voted for. That is even why so many nations in EU (poorer countries) do not seem to be satisfied with their lifestyles.

Sequestration will only cut like 85 billion dollars a year if I remember correctly. The public debt is 16-17 trillion. That is not enough even to pay the interest. And the problem about sequestration is that it is extremely inefficient because you cannot prioritize cuts. Everything gets cut the same way. Some experts claim that sequestration will provide more harm than good.

On the other hand there are many Serbs, who are sensible enough to realize that Kosovo is long time lost and there's no point in denying it. The trouble with Serbia is that the kind, the intelligent, the non aggressive and the non chauvinistic people have no voice. And about Bulgarian and Romanian membership - well, we'll see if it was a mistake or not in time.

Instead of being so overly preoccupied with the speck of sawdust in the eye of Romania and Bulgaria, you should start to notice the huge titanic plank in your eye: Spain and Greece, whose bankruptcy will collapse the whole house of cards that is the EU.

As a Serb, I can say this: The overall opinion of the Serbs towards the EU is in a huge decline, not because of the economic situation of the Union but because Serbia has to give up on Kosovo to join. The problem is, the EU officials earlier said that Serbia needs to cooperate with the Tribunal of Hague in order to join the union and that's the only unique pre-requisite. We do not trust the EU anymore as the union seems to be full of hypocritical politicians. I do understand that Serbian politicians are not better at all but the point is what Serbian people want to do. Why would a nation want to join a group of countries that keep lying to us? Finally, if you look at the countries like Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia and even Croatia which is to join the EU soon, the situation is quite concerning. All these countries are facing too many problems now and there are questions raised whether the EU is all that great.

Wow, you are "an EU member"? I didn't realise there were more than 27. How many MEPs do you have in the Euro Parliament? What is your population? Social structure (monarchy, republic, autarchy, delusional psychosis?)

Are you one of those fictitious countries like the Principality of Sealand?

". . . Finally, if you look at the countries like Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia and even Croatia which is to join the EU soon . . . All these countries are facing too many problems now and there are questions raised whether the EU is all that great".

I couldn't agree with you more. For a country which doesn't have a rock solid economy, including solid public finances, BEFORE they join the EU's 'straightjacket', membership can very well become a obstacle to this country's further consistent development.

That is a very stupid claim in light of UN resolution which define Kosovo AND METOHIJA as a part of Serbia (as the sole heir to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia).
And UN law supercedes all individual countries tradeoff decisions.

In April the European Commission will make a recommendation as to whether Serbia should open negotiations.
.
A visit to Belgrade by the Trioka - IMF, ECB, EU - now to examine the books would be better that visits later.
.
You'd think the trioka would have learned some lessons.
.
NPWFTL
Regards

Germans are experts on the Balkans, they know the situation from their streets.
And now I'm waiting for the fist person to complain about that the German parliament has something to say in that matter. Parliaments! In Germany!